Share This Talk

Topics

Tag

I’m a genetics professor with a Hindu background, Indian ancestry, American citizenship, and Christian beliefs. Am I more than my genes? Absolutely. And, I believe, so are you. I hope you find in my story the encouragement to wrestle with the hard questions of life, and not to be satisfied with easy answers that do not reach into the depths of who we are and why we’re here.

Just genes?

The word “genome” suggests to many that our DNA is simply a collection of genes from end-to-end, like books on a bookshelf. But it turns out that large regions of our DNA do not encode genes. Some once called these regions “junk DNA.” But this was a mistake.** More recently, they have been referred to as the “dark matter” of our genome. But what was once dark is slowly coming to light, and what was once junk is being revealed as treasure. The genome is filled with what we call “control elements” that act like switches or rheostats, dialing the activation of nearby genes up and down based on whatever is needed in a particular cell. An increasing number of devastating complex diseases, such as cancer, diabetes, and heart disease, can often be traced back, in part, to these rheostats not working properly. What’s more, environmental variables – like diet – can influence the way that genes and their rheostats work, thereby altering genome function and cell behavior, without making changes to the underlying DNA sequence at all. So, we cannot reduce an individual to a set of genes, or even an entire DNA sequence, rheostats and all, because how that DNA works depends, at least in part, on the environment as well.

Beyond human DNA

A remarkable discovery in biology in the last decade is that the human body is home to trillions of microorganisms, predominantly bacteria. Trillions. This is a staggering number. In fact, based on the most recent conservative estimate, more than 50% of the cells in our bodies have bacterial, not human, DNA. These bacteria live alongside and communicate with our human cells in a variety of organs, including the skin, the lung, and the intestine, and it turns out that they are essential for the healthy functioning of those organs. For example, microbes in our gut are critical for controlling how we absorb nutrients from the food we eat and how we maintain energy balance throughout the day. Some scientists are beginning to suggest that gut microbes may contribute to our mood and even how we learn and make memories. Changes in the bacteria can dramatically alter the way our human cells work, without making any changes to our DNA sequence at all, and this could lead to altered human behavior, and various diseases, such as diabetes, cancer, and even mental health conditions. So the bacteria in our body obliterate the view that humans are defined entirely by our own DNA. Our biological identities are closely wrapped up in bacteria!

Truth beyond science

So far, in this discussion of human identity, I’ve been focused on the science. But is science the only way of knowing? Is it the sole arbiter of truth? There is a common misconception that scientific explanations are exclusive: if I’ve understood something scientifically, I’ve understood it fully. Science offers a set of powerful tools for answering “what” and “how” questions about the natural world, but it does not have the tools to answer the big “why” questions of meaning and purpose. This does not by itself mean that there are answers to the “why” questions elsewhere – but it does mean that we have to be faithful to what science is, and not extend its purview beyond what it is capable of addressing. Science is necessarily agnostic with respect to anything outside of the natural realm. It neither accepts it, nor can it refute it. Therefore, the important point here is that science does not constrain us to look only to science in our search for the complete truth about who we are. So, beyond a scientific explanation of who I am, including genes, rheostats, environment, and bacteria, where else might I look to define my identity? Perhaps my name is a good starting point.

My name

My name, Praveen Sethupathy, is of Sanskrit origin. Praveen means “skillful.” Sethupathy means “lord of the bridge.” The bridge refers to a chain of limestone shoals that connected the southern tip of India to the northern coast of Sri Lanka. According to the ancient Hindu epic, “The Ramayana,” the bridge was constructed by lord Rama – an incarnation of the Hindu god Vishnu – and his army. My name is steeped in ancient Indian tradition and Hindu lore and my Indian heritage is an important part of who I am. I was raised as a Hindu for eighteen years and have always appreciated Hinduism as a rich culture to enjoy. But it wasn’t until my college years that I realized I didn’t really know much about Hinduism as a belief system to live by. I had gone through the motions of various rituals and was familiar with many of the traditions and stories of the faith. But I had no idea what Hinduism meant to me. I hadn’t really stopped to think about it.

An unlikely hero

As a curious undergrad at Cornell University, I embarked on an ambitious endeavor to read the Hindu Scriptures. But as I learned more about Hinduism, I became curious about how it compared to the host of other world religions. Eventually, I studied the major texts from many other religions, including Buddhism, Islam, and Christianity. What was it that stood out for me in Christianity? It was meeting the unique person of Jesus. He’s the supposed hero of the story, but he’s naked and broken on a cross. It seemed the opposite of a hero at first. But what I would learn is that he wasn’t on the cross because he was powerless to stop it. He was on the cross because that’s precisely how he chose to exercise his power – laying his life down solely for the sake of others. As a Christian, one who claims to follow in the way of Christ, I am also called to live a life of self-sacrifice for the benefit of others. The Scriptures say, “Let each of you look not only to his own interest, but also to the interest of others.” I don’t always live up to that calling, but it really does shape the way that I think about who I am. The Christian call is not to be safe and sound, bunkered within the confines of our walls. No, it’s to be willing to risk ourselves for the life and dignity of others. It is to consider the interests and needs of others even if it compromises our own safety or comforts. I am not compelled to this ethic merely out of logic, science, or reason, but by my faith in who Christ is, what he has done for me, and the example that he sets for me. Service toward others is not what we do when we want to feel good about ourselves or because it’s merely an evolutionary mechanism to benefit our “selfish genes.” I believe it’s what we do when we understand what it really means to be human.

Evaluating the evidence

As a biologist, I’ve learned that biological science is very rarely about “proof.” It’s more like detective work: accumulating evidence toward the most reasonable or likely explanation. So when I started getting interested in Christianity, I started evaluating the historicity of the gospel accounts of Jesus’ life. I did this much in the same way I carry out scientific work: gather data, make inferences, and make the case for the most likely scenario. Why was this so important for me to do? Stripped of Christ, Christianity was no more or less compelling to me than any other faith tradition. It was the person of Jesus that made all the difference.

Finding my identity

When I started following Jesus and finding my identity in him, it was a very confusing time for my family. Was I rejecting my Indian culture? Would I change my name to John or maybe Peter? Their confusion was not unfounded: many before me had done exactly that. But Jesus did not come to change names or to move people from one culture to another. He came to renew hearts and minds, and to bring life where there was death. So it was my joy to share with my family that I would remain Praveen Sethupathy—that Christ was laying a claim on my heart, not on my name. Becoming Christian had nothing to do with rejecting my Indian heritage. Rather, it was about embracing God’s interwoven presence in the history of mankind, Christ’s love and sacrifice for us, and our desperate need for him. Christ was brewing within me a renewed sense of purpose, commitment to others, and passion for justice.

Faith and culture

My Hindu heritage is part of who I am, a part of who I believe God created me to be. Perhaps you feel the same about your cultural background. But our culture and our core beliefs too often get confused as the same thing. Just as our bodies are not fully determined by our genes, so our identity is not dictated solely by our cultural background. If, like me, you come from a non-western background, don’t be put off by the misconception that Christianity is a western religion: it isn’t. Christianity began as a movement of Palestinian Jews. The first African convert to Christianity is recorded in the New Testament book of Acts. The Christian movement in India traces its roots back to the second century. And today, there may be more Christians in Asia and Africa than in Europe and North America.

Keep an open mind

No matter how popular the view of “junk DNA” among some in the scientific community, there was still an openness to the possibility that there was much more to it. In your search for identity, I would challenge you to ask yourself the hard questions and consider possibilities you may have always discounted. Perhaps you have a background in a particular faith tradition, or no faith at all. But if you haven’t questioned what that means to you, or how that shapes who you are, now is a great time to reflect on that and do your own detective work. There’s nothing to lose from keeping an open mind, and if there really is a God who created you, then there’s everything to gain in your search for identity.

In this article, I stated in the first paragraph that referring to non-gene-coding DNA as “junk” is a ‘mistake.’ I believe it is important to explain this further in order to avoid any misconception of my original intent. Specifically, it is essential to clarify that by this I do not mean that the genome lacks any non-functional DNA. For a more detailed elucidation, it may help to start with a very brief history of the term “junk DNA.”

In 1972, well before the human genome project, Dr. Susumu Ohno predicted astutely that the bulk (>90%) of the human genome is comprised of genetic material that does not code for genes (Ohno, 1972). He reasoned that the non-gene-coding sequences arose in large part due to duplication of genes during evolution, and that these duplicated copies accumulated mutations, lost their original functions, and now serve primarily as “filler space” between the functional genes. He argued that while some of these duplicated gene copies (now generally referred to as ‘pseudogenes’) could in theory evolve new functions, most would likely decay at a neutral rate and remain as degenerate sequences: “failures of nature’s past experiments.” It was in reference to these regions that he coined the term “junk DNA.”

When the human genome project was completed, Dr. Ohno’s central claim was validated – that the bulk of the genome does not code for genes (Lander et al., 2001, Nature). But, importantly, it became clearer than ever before that while pseudogenes are indeed prevalent, the vast majority of Dr. Ohno’s “filler space” is actually comprised of repetitive DNA sequences (or ‘repeats’), which were predicted in 1980 (Orgel and Crick, 1980; Doolittle and Sapienza, 1980), as well as other large stretches of DNA with no known functions. By the early 2000s, the term “junk” had been somewhat organically expanded by some in the scientific community to include all such non-gene-coding DNA (not just the pseudogenes), which was incorrectly perceived by many to be largely inactive. Over time, in some scientific circles and even in everyday parlance, “junk” came to be used rather loosely to refer to any DNA lacking biochemical activity and/or function (though this was not quite the original intent).

It is the broad application of this sense of the word “junk” to non-gene-coding DNA that I am referring to as a ‘mistake.’ It likely would have been no surprise to Dr. Ohno, or indeed to most pre-genome era geneticists, that some portions of what had come to be known as “junk DNA” could function as gene “rheostats”, which I described in my article (McClintock, B., 1956; Britten and Davidson, 1969). But where the post-genome era has been most illuminating is in the sheer abundance and diversity of these “rheostats,” and in the newly evolved complex functions of pseudogenes (e.g., Tam et al., 2008, Cell; Karreth et al., 2015, Cell) and even some types of ‘repeats’ (e.g., Chuong et al., 2013, Nature Genetics; Wang et al., 2014, Nature). My intention in using the word ‘mistake’ was to caution against the persisting notion among some that the vast majority of non-gene-coding sequence has little-to-no biochemical activity or function (since this is how “junk” has come to be understood in some scientific and non-scientific circles). On the other hand, it is equally important to be clear that this caution does not imply that all non-gene-coding DNA is functional or useful to the organism. Indeed, I believe there is at this snapshot in evolutionary time some considerable “junk” in our DNA, with no current function, only a small fraction of which will likely evolve new functions in the future.

On this issue, as is usually the case in science, I believe it is best to avoid dogmatic or extreme views. Also, it would seem that it is perhaps of benefit to altogether avoid terms such as “junk DNA,” since it no longer has a singular meaning in the scientific community. Indeed, as our knowledge has advanced, it is a credit to our field and our enhanced understanding of the human genome that no single term can capture the heterogeneity and nuances of non-gene-coding DNA.

For those who are interested in more about “junk DNA” I encourage you to check out the following article: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982212011542.

31 thoughts on "Am I more than my genes? Faith, identity, and DNA"

Your logic here with junk dna is nothing to do with your faith.it is just a failed attempt to connect those two.if you have faith in jesus write articles about him.but why are you talking about your hindu ancestory. It is just to attract innocent hindu Indians. Jesus born 2000 years ago.there are proofs of 11000 years back idols and temples of Hinduism. How can Christianity superior than Hinduism. And how can an ignorant with half knowledge like you can compare a Hinduism a sea of knowledge with Christianity which is like a small pond. How converting to Christian has nothing to do with your indian heritage.inDiana heritage is it’s great religion.leaving that religion means leaving your heritage.just don’t fool people with sweet words.don’t you know what happened to blacks of Africa after converting to Christianity?and what about red Indians?accepting other religion means losing our identity.not finding.

When Jesus was dying on the cross there next to him were two criminals. One cried out to Jesus to ask him to remember him, the other mocked Jesus. We all face a choice in how we respond to Jesus Christ. Why if you respect your own faith do you mock so great a figure? Is it because you don’t understand what you are mocking? If you understood what Jesus taught, you would know that Christians who enslaved other people, or killed others in the name of Christ, were not doing this out of obedience to his teaching. Furthermore you would know that Christianity goes back much further than 2000 years. Jesus was fulfilling a promise given in the garden of Eden, as well as fulfilling a promise to Abraham, and the Jewish law which goes back to Moses.

I am saying same thing.what is the need of mocking my religion here.if you have faith in jesus write articles about him. Why he took name of my religion.and according to genesis the birth of earth took place around 6000 b.c. so Christianity is not old than 8000 b.c. ok.but we have proofs of hindu religion idols for more than 11000 years.I didn’t say anything about jesus.my question is what is the need of bringing my religion in your discussion.if we do so you people are not ready to accept.hypocrisy.

Maybe you didn’t actually mock Jesus, but there was a bit of mocking of Dr. Sethupathy and of the Christian faith in your first statement. Maybe you didn’t mean it that way, but it came across as very antagonistic in an overly prideful way while also showing a serious misunderstanding of and bias against the Christian faith. Unless I read right over it, I don’t think anything negative about Hinduism was said in the article. By the way, Genesis does not give a date for the creation of the earth. All you can deduce is that the first man appears earlier than 6000 b.c. Also, all religions have horrible things done in their name which is not consistent with what the religion teaches – Hinduism included. It makes the most sense to investigate what the religions teach, what distinguishes them, to have proper comparison. While all religions address ways of treating one another, they don’t all teach the same thing at their very cores. If they did, you likely would not have had posted a comment.

if i posted a comment then how come it tells about my religion.his words are just fishy to attract Hindus to Christianity Hindus didn’t involved in any crusades or jihads.Just objecting the other’s opinions harshly also, should not be considered as bad.I don’t know your exact location.But come to India.Check here.So many people are being converted,by showing small problems in Hindu religion.Hindu religion enhanced herself with modern world.But these missionaries are converting people in the name of untouchability. These are mocking hinduism in day to day life.They are giving money to poor people to convert.Then after doing vote bank politics.In the above article what is the need of Dr. Sethupathy to mention about his ancestry. Indirectly his words are “I found enlightenment in Christianity which i didn’t found in Hinduism”.This is the way of their missionary publicity.Pastors here are becoming rich by converting people.They are receiving funds from foreign to convert people.What is the need to convert people from other religion to Christianity. We don’t want to involve in other religions.But christians are involving in our religions.They are converting celebrities by giving money.And using them to convert innocent people. God knows what is truth and he will take people towards that.What is the need to Christians to preach in non christian countries.They are closing churches in christian countries and opening in non-christian countries.His words work like slow poison to convert people.

Dear Subrahmanya, I understand your frustration, and even your anger. I am sorry that my words have contributed to this, it is certainly not my intention. You may not believe it, but I too have a visceral aversion to “conversion” in the way that you mention. I am deeply, and painfully, familiar with the way in which some western missionaries have disrespected, and even mistreated, the long-standing Hindu faith traditions of Indians. People are not “objects to convert” but individuals with their own stories and deeply rooted values deserving of respect and dignity. When I was growing up, I had deeply held negative views toward Christians and Christianity in general, in large part for the reasons that you cited (forced conversions, tricked conversions, etc). An important part of my spiritual journey since then has been to understand that what people say/do in the name of their God is often not reflective of what their faith tradition teaches, and it was keeping an open mind and doing my own study that allowed me to remove my prejudices and genuinely learn. My major points in this piece are three-fold: (1) both science and religion convey the complexity of human life and identity in fascinating ways, albeit somewhat differently; (2) most things in science and faith are not what they seem at first, so it is worth keeping an open mind; and (3) people must be encouraged to do *their own* detective work and certainly not convert or believe or follow blindly on the basis of my or anyone else’s “sweet words.” I aimed to communicate these three points through my own story, in the hope that it would encourage people (Christians and non-Christians alike) to think deeply about what they believe and how it shapes who they are. Even though I do not know you, I respect you, and your freedom to believe whatever you choose, and I have no intention or desire to convert you or anyone else to something that you yourself do not deeply hold or believe. Everyone must be given the dignity to make their choice out of their own strength of conviction. In my own journey, keeping an open mind allowed me to study enough to form my own convictions, and I thought that story could be useful for others.

As human being, when we’re born, we didn’t choose our ethnicity or race. We had no control on what region in the world we would be raised nor what mother & father we would have. It is the same with religions, if someone is born in the middle-east, the probability of being a Muslim is very high just like someone who is born in India, the probability of being a Hindu is huge! In Israel, if you’re born in that country, there is a big probability of being a Jew. This is common sense. If we look at the 5 major religions in the world today, we see:
– Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam and New Age although Sikhism & Judaism could also be part of the major religion.
The first thing I learned quickly in my study is that these 5 religions can’t all be true! The important question is what are these religions teaching about God in general and how it relate to us:

In Hinduism: “Hindus acknowledge multitudes of gods and goddesses”.
In Buddhism: “Buddhists say there is no deity”.
In Islam: “Muslims believe in a powerful but unknowable God”.
In Christianity: “Christians believe in a God who is loving and approachable”.
In New Age Movement: “New Age followers believe they are God”.

Are all religions worshiping the same God? Let’s consider that. New Age teaches that everyone should come to center on a cosmic consciousness, but it would require Islam to give up their one God, Hinduism to give up their numerous gods, and Buddhism to establish that there is a God.

The world’s major religions (Hinduism, New Age, Buddhism, Islam, following Jesus Christ) are each quite unique. And of these one affirms that there is a personal, loving God who can be known, now in this life. Jesus Christ spoke of a God who welcomes us into a relationship with him and comes along side us as a comforter, counselor and powerful God who loves us.

In Hinduism a person is on their own trying to gain release from karma. In New Age a person is working at their own divinity. In Buddhism it is an individual quest at being free from desire. And in Islam, the individual follows religious laws for the sake of paradise after death. In Jesus’ teaching, you see a personal relationship with a personal God — a relationship that carries over into the next life.

Can we connect with God in this life? Of course, yes. Not only you can connect with God, you also can know that you are fully accepted and loved by God.

Many world religions place an individual on their own, striving for spiritual perfection.

Buddha, for example, never claimed sinlessness. Muhammad also admitted that he was in need of forgiveness. “No matter how wise, no matter how gifted, no matter how influential other prophets, gurus, and teachers might be, they had the presence of mind to know that they were imperfect just like the rest of us.”

Jesus Christ, however, never alluded to any personal sin. Instead, Jesus forgave people of their sin and he wants to forgive us of our sin also. We all are aware of our faults, the areas of our lives that may cause others to think less of us, areas that we ourselves wish were not there…maybe it’s an addiction, a bad temper, impurity, hateful remarks. God loves us but hates sin, and he has said that the consequence for sin is separation from knowing him. But God provided a way for us to be forgiven and know him. Jesus, the Son of God, God in human form, took all of our sin on himself, suffered on a cross, and willingly died in our place. The Bible says, “By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us.”

God is offering us complete forgiveness because of Jesus’ death for us. This means forgiveness for all our sins…past, present and future. Jesus paid for them all. God, who created the universe, loves us and wants to be in a relationship with us. “This is how God showed his love among us: he sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him.”

Through Christ, God offers us real freedom from our sin and guilt. He does not leave a person’s failures on their shoulders, with a dim hope of becoming a better person tomorrow.

In Jesus Christ, God reached toward humanity, providing a way for us to know him. “For God so loved the world that he sent his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life.”

God wants us to know him.

We were created by God to live in relationship with him. Jesus said, “He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty…and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.” Jesus called people not only to follow his teachings, but to follow him. He said, “I am the way, and the truth and the life.” In claiming to be the truth, Christ goes beyond mere prophets and teachers who simply said they were speaking the truth.

Jesus identified himself as equal to God, and even gave proof. Jesus said that he would be crucified on a cross and that three days after his death, he would come back to life. He didn’t say he would reincarnate someday into a future life. (Who would know if he actually did it?) He said three days after being buried he would show himself alive to those who saw his crucifixion. On that third day, Jesus’ tomb was found empty and many people testified that they saw him alive again. He now offers eternal life to us.

Unlike many world religions…

Many Major Religions focus on a person’s spiritual efforts. With Jesus Christ it’s a two-way interaction between you and God. He welcomes us to go to him. “The Lord is near to all who call upon him, to all who call upon him in truth.” You can communicate with God, who will answer your prayer, give you greater peace and joy, provide direction, show you his love, and transform your life. Jesus said, “I came that they might have life, and have it more abundantly.” It will not mean that life will become perfect and free of problems. But it means that in the midst of life, you can relate to God who is willing to be involved in your life and faithful in his love.

This is not a commitment to a method of self-improvement like the Eight Fold Path or the Five Pillars, or meditation, or good works or even the Ten Commandments. These seem clear, well-defined, easy-to-follow paths for spirituality. But they become a burdensome striving for perfection, and connection with God is still distant.

Our hope is not in following laws or standards, but in knowing a Savior who fully accepts us because of our faith in him and his sacrifice for us. We don’t earn our place in heaven by religious efforts or good deeds. Heaven is a free gift to us, when we begin a relationship with Jesus Christ.

I realized that being born in a certain religion (with tradition, culture & pre-existing belief in a God) doesn’t make you one for Example, there are many people born in Muslim family in the M-E and as soon as they start thinking for themselves, they become apostate (reject their belief) although for the sake of their safety, family and friends, they will stay silent in their unbelief! Honor killing is something we don’t hear often though it happens frequently in some countries, mainly Islamic. I hope I didn’t offend anyone as it wasn’t my purpose, may God bless you all! 🙂

Yankie, you have obviously done a lot of homework and I enjoy reading your perspectives on matters of faith. I would love to have personal contact with you (to use you as a ‘sounding board’ on some aspects of my writing), but I fear that this is not the appropriate forum for that – as much as I love Veritas. This stream was supposed to be about genes and the (often) perceived effect that it has on the worldview of people.
Is there any chance that you might be willing to share your eMail address with me?

Interesting perspective. I enjoy your sharing. It is God’s Spirit that works in the heart of man. Jesus does that. ..the foreigners you talk about may seem rich but they are likely forsaking greater earnings in their if homelands to follow the Lord’s call. If what you are saying is that they are bribing or using money to manipulate conversions, then I completely agree. That is very wrong and not God’s doing. That should not be the case for any Christian who keeps Jesus as their motivation and guide.

Brother.. Didn’t you see how he said he didn’t find ‘enlightenment’ in the religion, but rather in the person of Jesus Christ? God is objective, and proved that Jesus lived a perfect sacrificial life, by disallowing Him to remain dead… It would have been unjust. And so He lives. You should ask for yourself in your heart… Don’t listen to human beings, they will ultimately only mislead or let you down, but ask God Himself. And feel the peace overflowing from our brother’s beautiful essay.

Your haven’t got that right. The 6000 year old earth is part of a young earth creationist movement that despite being debunked still lingers today. Most thinking Christians especially with a background in science agree God is the author of an ancient world (from our human perspective).

Greater understanding of junk DNA and the symbiotic nature of bacteria has increased understanding of the physical aspects of life. I think Dr. Sethupathy made a good point with that analogy from his area of expertise. It goes a long way in showing the nature of knowledge in all areas, including in the spiritual realm. I often use the parable of the elephant and the blind men in teaching the engineering practice of root cause analysis to show that if each engineer (the equivalent of the blind men in the parable) only investigated a technical problem (the elephant) from their own perspective and discipline, they would often not solve the real problem, rather they would only see it from their limited perspective. Yet, when a group of engineers share their perspectives and each tries to see what the other sees, the true understanding of the problem results for all of them (their eyes are opened to the truth) and a disaster can be averted if the technical problem had to do with a critical system. In the same way, merely accepting any religious teaching in a vacuum and from a prideful perspective often results in misconceptions, not only of the other teachings, but even of the teachings one has previously accepted from their own upbringing. Greater insight to the truth of reality comes from looking at the whole and assessing what aligns with what is observed. A claim of superiority is an unnecessary claim from pride – from which one can remain blind to seeing the whole elephant for what it is. That a philosophy is older doesn’t mean it is better. (And there is the question of whether it really is older, but that is beside the point.) Rather, each should be evaluated for true comparison and evaluated against what is clearly seen as true in day to day life and in historical analysis. Dr. Sethupathy has claimed to have investigated all of the major religions. That can only be done with setting aside one’s pride and concern about how others who are predisposed to certain ideas will judge, and then with being honest with the facts.

Thanks Prof. Sethupathy (Brother Praveen)
Thanks very much for writing this and sharing your testimony. I come from Jainism and have become follower of the Lord Jesus Christ about 5 years ago. It is very encouraging to know that there are Christians like yourself who has Indian Hindu background and is in the field of Science. Sadly in India Christianity has been preached majorly to the poor and illiterate class (there is nothing wrong in that) but the rich and highly literates have not been exposed to the truth of the person and work of Lord Jesus Christ. Christian faith is not blind and irrational but it is very much based on reason. God himself ask us to reason with him and believe in him. Indian elites needs to know this.
Thanks once again for living out your faith in Christ Jesus and reaching out. Let us keep praying for India that our Lord Jesus Christ reigns on the hearts of our Indian brothers and sisters.

Are we more than just our DNA, yes, we are also a function of all the microorganisms that cohabit our body. Whats that to do with the premise of the title , ‘Am I more than my genes? Faith, identity, and DNA’, well NOTHING.

Does having microorganisms in our body have anything to do with him being a Christian and his Christian faith? Well nothing again

This is just ambush marketing of his faith using his scientific credentials as a bait. BIG FAIL, I say…….Utterly dishonest.

Use of analogies and similarities plays a big part in scientific discovery and advancement of knowledge. While two things in an analogy are not connected directly, one idea that is similar in one field can feed another and a new way of looking at things. Often these analogies reveal common principles at work. You can Google the use of analogy in scientific discovery and development of ideas. As such, I am really surprise at the all capitalized “NOTHING” above. Is that not being dishonest? To disagree with the analogy is one thing. But to say it has no value and no point is not being honest either.

What analogy?. There is no analogy that’s been used in the description.He goes from micro-organisms that cohabit our body to his Christian faith in one big leap. There is no logical connection between the two.

If he wants to talk about his faith, thats perfectly fine . Dont create these false pretexts based on non-sequiturs. Its disingenuous to both Science and his faith.

Mr Mathew you missed the connection the author made. Of course “having microorganisms” has nothing to do with his Christian faith. Instead he made two connections between his work as a scientist and his faith. First, his experience of real science shows him that the “misconception that scientific explanations are exclusive” is wrong and that true scientists should be open to other kinds of evidence. Second, he sees a similarity between his methodical “detective work” with regard to genetics and the detective work he applied to explore Christian claims. There is no doubt he is using his cultural capital as a scientist to gain an audience for his position, but it seems all do this. What counts is the strength of his arguments, which you did not engage with!

What were the strengths of his arguments? The good doctor may be a geneticist, but having studied mammalian genomes for many years, I know that there is a great deal of variation in noncoding DNA even within species. That some Christians have taken to declaring there to be no such thing as “junk DNA” is a given – their supposed arguments are largely self-serving and consist primarily of cherry-picked snippets of confirmation bias.

Does Mr Pravin Sentgupta and his mentor Francis Collins really believe that the quality of evidence required in scientific research of the nature they are involved him is the same as someone claiming Jesus rose up from the dead based on the claims of the gospels?. The methods of researching history CANNOT establish a claim towards the supernatural like rising up from the dead . History is the study of what probably happened in the past. Miracles by definition is the least probable explanation and hence is to be rejected outright by serious historians.

If miracles can be established by the supposed claims of ancient writings base on eye witnesses, then are we to assume that the prophet Muhammad split the moon into two?. Should that too be recorded as a scientific fact? According to the Islamic Hadiths, all the resident of Mecca and Medica saw the miracle of the moon splitting into two and then sticking back together…

So its extremely disingenuous for him to claim the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus is the same as the evidence he records in his scientific research. Its shameful that they make this claim.

Thomas…I’m a Christian and tend to agree that his logic isn’t really sound here. I don’t understand the connection between his example of our dependency on other micro-organisms and his personal faith. It’s like he tried to connect it with the idea that there are other ways of knowing outside of science but I think its a poor analogy. I agree that there are ways of knowing outside of science, but I don’t understand how the entire first part of his post establishes this in any way.

You said, “The methods of researching history CANNOT establish a claim towards the supernatural like rising up from the dead . History is the study of what probably happened in the past. Miracles by definition is the least probable explanation and hence is to be rejected outright by serious historians.”

I agree that historical methods and science can’t establish the truth of miracles with certainty (for how could we ever test such rare events using a repeatable method? it doesn’t make sense and goes against the very definition of a miracle!). I still think that the miracle of Jesus’ resurrection has enormous explanatory power for the following well accepted facts (by the majority of historians and harshest skeptics) surrounding these events:

(1) Jesus died by crucifixion
2) Jesus was buried
3) Jesus’ death caused disciples to despair and lose hope, believing his life had ended
4) Jesus’ tomb was found to be empty just a few days later
5) Disciples had experiences they actually believed to be literal appearances of the risen Jesus
6) Disciples were transformed from doubters afraid to identify with Jesus to bold proclaimers of His death and resurrection
7) This message was central to the preaching of the early church.
8) It was especially proclaimed in Jerusalem, where Jesus died and was buried only a short time before.
9) As a result of the preaching, the church was born and grew.
10) Sunday became the primary day of worship (especially powerful considering early believers were all Jewish)
11) James, formerly a skeptic, was converted to faith when he also saw what he believed to be the resurrected Jesus.
12) A few years later, Paul likewise was converted by what he believed to an appearance of the resurrected Jesus.

All other theories that have been developed to explain these facts fall short. They can’t make sense of these things. The closest theory I have seen to explaining them outside of the resurrection is that Jesus was an alien! Well, to establish that, I’d have to see some other convincing proof that I should believe in intelligent life beyond our planet and that they have the means to reach us. Well I haven’t seen it so I conclude the miracle of the resurrection is the best explanation. You might object saying, “well that requires evidence that miracles exist!” And you are right. But here I think the Christian is justified in the belief of miracles by appealing to the existence of God. If God exists than miracles are at least possible. To disprove this, you would have to adequately defeat the arguments for God’s existence (cosmological, ontological, teleological, moral arguments). OR you would have to prove that miracles are impossible for God to accomplish. I think you’ll find this a very difficult task as the greatest minds in atheism haven’t really put a dent in these arguments. Therefore, I and other Christians are justified in our belief that the miracle of resurrection is the best explanation for the twelve facts listed above.

As far as the historicity of Jesus goes, here are some FACTS historians agree on

1)Almost everything we are TOLD about Jesus today are from writings in GREEK( including the canonical gospels) written at-least 50-200 years after Jesus’s time.

2) Neither Jesus nor his disciples spoke or could have written GREEK. They were Aramaic speaking peasants who could have known atleast a few Greek words at best. Almost certainly most were illiterate

3) There are no contemporary accounts of the life of the historical Jesus. Everything written on Jesus was probably atleast 50 years after his times

4) There are no eye witness , contemprory accounts about the historical Jesus. The Canonical gospels were almost certainly not written by eye witnesses. They were almost certainly not written by Matthew, Mark Luke or John. The Canonical Gospel writers do not identify themselves as Matthew Mark or Luke( with the exception of John). The Gospel of John is almost certainly a forgery

5) The Gospel of Mark was probably the first canonical gospel to be written. The original autographs are lost. All copies are lost. All complete copies from the first 3 centuries are lost. All we have are copies of ‘copies of copies of copies’ which have thousands upon thousand of transcription errors, lot of them have been tampered with, new stories created, the Resurrection story added much later….

6) Tomb of Jesus: Which one is the real empty tomb?. Is it the one thats the Church of the Holy Sepulcher considered to be the tomb for over 2000 years? Or the Garden tomb ‘discovered’ in the 1960s by a man who had no archaeological credentials? What about the Talpiot tomb recently discovered to have some inscriptions which points to Jesus and his family and its certainly not empty?

7) “Disciples had experiences they actually believed to be literal appearances of the risen Jesus ”

Subjective experiences are not considered evidence by historians. If it were, then every such claim would have to be accepted as fact. Do you accept the Prophet Muhammad split the moon into two based on eye witnesses? What objective criteria would you set to verify such claims? What about people who claim to have seen virgin mary? Do we buy their experiences?

8)”Disciples were transformed from doubters afraid to identify with Jesus to bold proclaimers of His death and resurrection”

The early church of the first century was not a monolith of any kind. There were all kinds of theological positions. Some did not consider Jesus to be God, others believed he was an angel, still others did not believe he rose up from the dead. According to NT historian Bart Ehrman, when we talk about Christianity in the first century, we have to refer to ‘Christianities’ (plural). The current framework of Christianity evolved mostly by the 4th century after the first counsel of Nicea under emperor Constantine…

So all this talk about disciples rising up from their doubt and stuff is mostly just faith based fantasy than reality

9) “A few years later, Paul likewise was converted by what he believed to an appearance of the resurrected Jesus.”

The writings of Paul probably precede the Gospel of Mark. That means, Paul’s vision of Jesus may have been the starting point of the talk about the resurrection..

So please, to suggest the resurrection of Jesus is some kind of scientific fact is completely unfounded on any objective standard of scientific inquiry. Or historical inquiry for that matter where a lot of speculation is involved

Thanks Thomas. I appreciate discussing these things because they push me to learn more. I don’t claim to be a historian or scholar, but I do enjoy learning more on these topics with every discussion. I also don’t claim to be 100% certain or right on everything I say. People like you help me learn more so I appreciate it! Here are my thoughts on your presented propositions.

All of them: I clarified my post to NManning that I shouldn’t have called them facts. I should have called them propositions. We can’t know these things with 100% certainty…but they are probably true.

1) I’m not sure about dating of all the texts, but as we are discussing the resurrection of Jesus, I’d like to focus on when it was first mentioned. Paul’s creed found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is the earliest mention we have of the resurrection. He likely received it in Jerusalem after his conversion.

Even the (liberal) Jesus Seminar co-founder John Dominic Crossan, writes:

“Paul wrote to the Corinthians from Ephesus in the early 50s C.E. But he says in 1 Corinthians 15:3 that “I handed on to you as of first importance which I in turn received.” The most likely source and time for his reception of that tradition would have been Jerusalem in the early 30s when, according to Galatians 1:18, he “went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas [Peter] and stayed with him fifteen days.”

Regardless…50 years (even if I grant it) really isn’t that much time when compared to similar works.

2) The apostles not speaking Greek…I don’t see why they couldn’t find scholars to write in Greek for them? Paul certainly spoke and wrote Greek. Also would it be impossible for them to have learned Greek after the death of Jesus?

3) So I’ve seen many convincing arguments on the contemporary accounts of Jesus by Christian and skeptical scholars. Far from being factual, your statement on their being no contemporary accounts seems to be a highly contentious issue. I don’t think either of us are qualified to make a judgement on this with any sense of certainty, given how divided the experts are.

4) So I’m going to draw on Dr. Craig here and say that even if I agree with you, your point overall isn’t of importance to increasing the validity of the gospel accounts of Jesus’ life. Dr. Craig writes. “What are some of the factors that might serve the role of increasing the probability E of some saying or event S? The following are some of the most important:

(1) Historical congruence: S fits in with known historical facts concerning the context in which S is said to have occurred.
(2) Independent, early attestation: S appears in multiple sources which are near to the time at which S is alleged to have occurred and which depend neither upon one another nor upon a common source.
(3) Embarrassment: S is awkward or counter-productive for the persons who serve as the source of information for S.
(4) Dissimilarity: S is unlike antecedent Jewish thought-forms and/or unlike subsequent Christian thought-forms.
(5) Semitisms: Traces in the narrative of Aramaic or Hebraic linguistic forms.
(6) Coherence: S is consistent with already established facts about Jesus.

So to me, you are looking to the wrong factors to determine reliability. You could apply this same argument to many of your facts.

5) I agree that Mark was likely the first written and that Matthew and Luke borrowed from Mark. First, I’m ok with you judging Mark on your high standards of acceptance on Mark only if you apply it to the writings of everyone else. The manuscript evidence for Mark is similar to that of other equivalent ancient texts. I believe it is better. If you reject Mark, then please reject all writings of other authors living in the same time period. Second, while I agree that there is variance in the manuscripts across all books of the new testament…the vast majority of this variance is insignificant! The vast majority of discrepancies are spelling and translation errors and aren’t significant.

6) I think our current understanding of the location of this tomb is irrelevant to the reliability of the gospel accounts and the events they describe. The majority of scholars believe that the tomb was found empty (wherever it was).

7) I agree with you to an extent. My point is that these experiences must be explained. We could call them hallucinations or perhaps they were just lying. I only pointed out it needs explanation that is cohesive with the other 11 points.

8) The proposition only claims that the disciples went from fearful to bold in their belief of Jesus’ death and resurrection. The collective beliefs of the early church outside of this statement are irrelevant. If you read the new testament and the various authors presented, I think you will find the early church was very uniform in their belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus.

I also find it interesting that you conclude these things about early Christianity. While your propositions only have sought to discredit the accounts concerning the life of Jesus, I’m surprised you accept any finding about the early church based on new testament manuscripts. Where are you getting this data about the early church if not from the new testament?

9) Here you said, “That means, Paul’s vision of Jesus may have been the starting point of the talk about the resurrection.” How does this address the statement, “A few years later, Paul likewise was converted by what he believed to an appearance of the resurrected Jesus”? It doesn’t. Again, my point is that most scholars accept that Paul was converted by what he believed to be an encounter with Jesus. The best explanation for this and the other 11 propositions is the resurrection.

Finally you conclude: “So please, to suggest the resurrection of Jesus is some kind of scientific fact is completely unfounded on any objective standard of scientific inquiry. Or historical inquiry for that matter where a lot of speculation is involved.”

But I never suggested that the resurrection of Jesus is scientific fact! Instead I agreed with you by saying, “I agree that historical methods and science can’t establish the truth of miracles with certainty.” However, I do believe the resurrection has enormous explanatory power for the 12 propositions presented. I am, therefore, justified in my belief of the resurrection.

Thanks for the discussion. I appreciate any reply you give, but I will likely not have time to respond further. Thanks very much!

Hi Joe,
I enjoyed reading your post related to the historical account of Jesus Christ. The atheist guy who said that the apostle could not known Greek at the time, or maybe just a few words at best although I disagree because based on more recent historical research and linguistic data, Jesus spoke Greek, had the linguistic ability to teach in Greek, and at times may indeed have taught in Greek.http://www.ntgreek.org/answers/nt_written_in_greek.htm

“5) Disciples had experiences they actually believed to be literal appearances of the risen Jesus ”

The experiences they had may be facts, but what they BELIEVED they experienced were just their beliefs.

I watched an interview with Newt Gingrich the other day in which he claimed that what people fell is more important than facts (he used the word “numbers”, but the ‘rationale’ is the same). But I prefer actual numbers/facts to beliefs.

Thank you sir. I get it. I like facts as well. I probably shouldn’t have called these 12 things facts though. My apologies. They are propositions. The reality is that we can be 100% certain of very few things in life (probably like 95% of things in life). So we’re looking at probabilities here. We’re searching for the best explanation that fits all of these facts. I believe the resurrection has the best explanatory power for these 12 propositions. Are any one of these 12 known with certainty? No. We couldn’t know them with certainty. But the majority of expert historians and skeptics who have spent their lives pouring over the records surrounding Jesus’ life think these 12 statements are probably true. Please read pages 45-59 of the following work by Dr. Gary Habermas. He’s led the charge on this argument.

Notice I’m not saying that there is universal acceptance or uniform agreement on these 12 propositions. You will find educated scholars that dispute every one of them. However, as a whole, they are widely accepted and the best explanation that fits them is the resurrection.

Mister Manning, you say ‘just their beliefs’? Well, how would you explain the documented historical facts that the Roman Procurator, Pilot, instructed a full “Guard” (consisting of 5 to 7 soldiers) to guard the chamber where Jesus’s body was placed, only after a massive circular rock (that could not be moved, even by 5 strong men),was placed in front of the tomb’s entrance, because Pilot did everything he could to prevent the body from being moved or stolen – because he knew of the “third day resurrection” that was proclaimed beforehand. But it was open on the morning of the third day; The same ancient historian, Josephus, also documented the prevailing laws at that time, which stipulated (among other things) that any guard found failing in his duty in any way, will be executed on the spot.
Then there are the believers who afterwards chose to rather lose their lives (eaten by lions, crucified upside-down, killed with sword/spear) than proclaiming that “Pilot is a god”. They stuck to their FIRM CONVICTION that “Jesus is Lord” and NOTHING could sway them. Now why would they, in their hundreds, want to do such a silly thing? Did they all have some ‘misconceived’ idea that the Lord was really talking to them after the Resurrection? I think it would have been much easier for them to merely say “OK, I must have been mistaken”. I am not so sure that such silliness has ever been recorded in history.
Every conceivable statement that is made by a Christian is consistently “refuted” by those who choose not to believe, for whatever reason they might have. I have been told so many times that a response by a Christian MUST reflect kindness, but sometimes I can also ‘lose my cool’ when non-believers seem to frequent Christian blogs and websites so that they can freely demonstrate and openly bare their clearly lacking intellect in such an ill-mannered way. You would be well advised to actually read the Bible before you comment on it, and also to read wider historic gems that have been preserved so that we, in 2016, can also know something about the social, political and economic conditions that people were living under two thousand years ago.
Lastly, I wish people like you would show some respect and learn their theology from theologians, rather than from the vitriol emanating from the mouths of other uninformed non-believers.

We are more than our genetics, faith , and identity, we are our souls , and our souls come from heaven , angels in heaven , incarnate aspects , of themselves into physical bodies on earth , so we aspre in fact , angels ,

We are beings of love , light and consciousness, and we are here on earth to learn , from a polarity between darkness and light.

I’m not a scholar nor do I have any recognizably lofty credentials. I teach art in a HS. I have a personal story about how I came to faith. It wasn’t on purpose. I wasn’t looking for meaning. I had a really cool fun life with a few unfortunate bumps along the way, like most of us. The only thing I did that was extraordinary,say others who know me was that I tended to my mother-in- law for all her needs after a series of strokes that left her dependent on me and my wife. I washed her, sucked mucus from her lungs and sat by her bedside and made stupid jokes to try to get her to laugh. She died in our arms in her living room shortly after Christmas. A couple of weeks went by and I heard a knock on my front door, twice! The second one was when I was just 1foot away from turning the knob. So no one could have been doing a ding dong ditch. To make a long story short something out of the air suddenly wept into my body and embraced me to my core, my bones….. it softly slide me down the wall and placed me on the floor. It was both beautiful and cleansing. You know, like an amazing shower you take after being at the beach and the water from the spicket is just right. Well, it was her most wonderful feeling, one you can’t describe in mere words. I was clean. I wept the most cleansing tears. And when I was released I was different. It took the better part of a year to even begin to understand. But I came to know it as what. Heistians call a revelation 3:20 experience. Many “spiritual “things happened in my journey to understand this event and people and doors opened up to me which led me to the gospel of Jesus. I am a worship leader now in a small art gallery church plant and I am fully convinced that this relationship with Jesus was a gift from God in order that I understand my purpose here which is to be the hands and feet of the one who gave it all. If you want you can message me personally and I would love to share how my walk has impacted me and those I fellowship with